Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Council officers suspecting he had taken his mother’s medication. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could add to the response already provided by the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains social workers suspected he had taken his mother’s medication, causing him a great deal of distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr X provided. I also considered the Council’s complaint responses, which we requested from the Council. I sent Mr X a draft of my decision and discussed it with him over the telephone.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X complains a social worker asked him, during a home visit, whether he had taken his mother’s medication, following her concerns about his mother being very unwell and needing additional support. On a subsequent visit, a second social worker voiced his concern that Mr X might be taking his mother’s medication. Mr X complained to the Council.
7. The Council, in its complaint response, said the first social worker’s grounds for suspicion were raised due to ‘professional curiosity’ and concerns around Mr X’s lack of knowledge of medication administration. It found no fault in the officer’s ‘professional curiosity’ but agreed a more robust rationale could have been provided about the reasons for her concern. It said it might have been appropriate for the second social worker to have taken a different approach in raising his concerns with Mr X. It apologised to Mr X if his questioning was too direct but said its social workers do sometimes need to ask challenging questions. It also apologised to Mr X for the distress this matter caused. It placed a copy of its complaint response on file along with the relevant records.
8. The outcomes Mr X sought in complaining to this office, were: for the Council to admit he was suspected of taking specific medications; to remove the notes on this matter from the system and to issue a written apology clearing him of suspicion.
9. The Council confirmed, in the complaint response, there was not a specific medication it suspected Mr X of taking. It explained why the social workers had concerns and why he was questioned about whether he had taken his mother’s medication. This was essentially a matter of professional judgement for the social workers to decide and we are not, by law, able to question the merits of these types of decisions where there is no sign of fault in the way they were made. The Council has acknowledged it could have offered a clearer explanation to Mr X and has apologised for the distress caused. There is nothing further an investigation by the Ombudsman would be able to add on these points.
10. Mr X would like the records on this matter to be removed from the file, but this is not an outcome achievable by an investigation. The notes stand as a history of events here. The Council has placed a copy of the complaint response on file so Mr X’s view on the matter will be seen by anyone who views the file in the future. This is a suitable step, given the records cannot be removed.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because, for the reasons set out in the paragraphs above, it is unlikely an investigation could add to the response already provided via the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman